<quoted text>Former---I pay them because it's a DEBT andif one does not pay he is subject to legal proceeding/entanglementswhich would result in fines, high legal costs and possible imprisonment.HughBe--- I would use the word DUTY instead of DEBT even if legally it is called a DEBT.I am inclined to see it as FORCED payments that are determined by others without my input.I am also inclined to see it as COVETOUSNESS by those who have power to take my money against my will.In essence it is a type of extortion.

Well then you agree more with the other fellow, Voluntarist.

He and I have had a long discussion on the subject.

Taxes are certainly forced on us but I would argue partially with my own input as I'm a voter and agree with some though not all uses of my tax money.

<quoted text>1040 Line 76Amount You OweAmount you owe. Subtract line 72 from line 61.Since when do you care about the law?You claim the law doesn't even apply to you.You sound inconsistent.The gov't can place a lien on your house if you don't pay your taxes. Same with any other debt.We speak in terms of "tax liability."Liabilities are debts. any way you look at it.Consider yourself schooled yet again.No charge.

Gee I looked at a form where it states "amount you owe" and it was blank.Are you insisting that some words on a piece of paper mean that there is a debt?

<quoted text>Well then you agree more with the other fellow, Voluntarist.He and I have had a long discussion on the subject.Taxes are certainly forced on us but I would argue partially with my own input as I'm a voter and agree with some though not all uses of my tax money.

In Jamaica it just might be the case that taxation is implemented without representation. If so, I can certainly understand how that might frustrate someone like Hughbe, who craves control.

The 97% consensus  a lie ofepic proportionsPosted by Anthony WattsTo John Cook  it isnt hate, its pity, pityfor having such a weak argument you areforced to fabricate conclusions of epicproportionsProving that crap can flow uphill, yesterday,John Cook got what one could consider theultimate endorsement. A tweet from theTwitter account of the Twitterer in Chief,Barack Obama, about Cooks 97% consensuslie.I had to laugh about the breathless headlinesover that tweet, such as this one from theWashington Posts Valerie Strauss at TheAnswer Sheet:Heres the genesis of the lie. When you take aresult of 32.6% of all papers that accept AGW,ignoring the 66% that dont , and twist thatinto 97%, excluding any mention of thatoriginal value in your media reports, theresnothing else to call it  a lie of presidentialproportions. From the original press releaseabout the paper:Exhibit 1:From the 11 994 papers, 32.6 per centendorsed AGW, 66.4 per cent stated noposition on AGW, 0.7 per cent rejected AGWand in 0.3 per cent of papers, the authors saidthe cause of global warming was uncertain.Exhibit 2:Our findings prove that there is a strongscientific agreement about the cause ofclimate change, despite public perceptions tothe contrary.I pity people whose argument is so weak theyhave to lie like this to get attention, I pity evenmore the lazy journalists that latch onto lieslike this without even bothering to ask a singlecritical question.Of course try to find a single mention of that32.6 percent figure in any of the news reports,or on Cooks announcement on his ownwebsite .http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/17/to-john...

Washington Post?

You mean the SAME paper that adamantly predicted a Romney win because they actually believed all of the other polls where biased DESPITE evidence to the contrary?

<quoted text>1040 Line 76Amount You OweAmount you owe. Subtract line 72 from line 61.Since when do you care about the law?You claim the law doesn't even apply to you.You sound inconsistent.The gov't can place a lien on your house if you don't pay your taxes. Same with any other debt.We speak in terms of "tax liability."Liabilities are debts. any way you look at it.Consider yourself schooled yet again.No charge.

You can not lien without a judicial order, and liens could and have been removed.

<quoted text>Well then you agree more with the other fellow, Voluntarist.He and I have had a long discussion on the subject.Taxes are certainly forced on us but I would argue partially with my own input as I'm a voter and agree with some though not all uses of my tax money.

I am glad that you agree that there is a gun to your head to pay taxes.

<quoted text>You are always attacking the messenger yet you use the UN as some kind of authority.

Reread the post. It had nothing to do with accepting the UN as an authority. In fact, the point the author (not me) was making was that it didnt matter WHAT the international scientists (What you are calling the UN) thought

I WON'T BOTHER explaining to you why your post misses the point. I'll let you figure it out again by reading this:

"Many studies simply defer to the expert summary of climate science research put together by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which states that most of the global warming since the mid-20th century has been caused by humans. According to recent research, that statement is actually too conservative..."

Voluntarist wrote:

<quoted text>You are always attacking the messenger yet you use the UN as some kind of authority.

The sum total of carbon in various forms on earth is fixed and unless carbon as CO2 or in any other form is increasing in volume as a result of being generated in huge amounts on earth or is entering the earth's atmosphere from extra-terrestrial sources, we need not panic about fluctuations in the amount of CO2 in the earth's atmosphere. These are temporary and local phenomena. Rise/fall of CO2 levels is a natural geochemical cycle linked to the unlocking or conversion of locked carbon into carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide and other forms of carbon.

Although the number of publicly dissenting scientists is growing, many young scientists furtively say that while they also have serious doubts about the global-warming message, they are afraid to speak up for fear of not being promotedor worse. They have good reason to worry. In 2003, Dr. Chris de Freitas, the editor of the journal Climate Research, dared to publish a peer-reviewed article with the politically incorrect (but factually correct) conclusion that the recent warming is not unusual in the context of climate changes over the past thousand years. The international warming establishment quickly mounted a determined campaign to have Dr. de Freitas removed from his editorial job and fired from his university position. Fortunately, Dr. de Freitas was able to keep his university job.

Mathematically challenged fools with a poor grasp of scientific concepts and zero reasoning skills are toeing the questionable line of the establishment. These fools cannot even calculate the oxidation state of an element in a redox reaction and are attempting to debate global warming. LOL.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Add your comments below

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite.
Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.